Jawed Manjlai v. Nabila Hamid Manjlai
447 S.W. 3d 376, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9480, 2014 WL 4199201 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marriage may be annulled on the grounds of fraudulent inducement when sufficient circumstantial evidence demonstrates that one party entered the marriage with no intention of fulfilling marital vows but for an ulterior purpose, such as obtaining permanent residency, and the other party ceased cohabitation after discovering the full scope of the fraud.
Facts:
- Nabila Hamid Manjlai, a U.S. citizen, met Jawed Manjlai, a Pakistani citizen, through a marriage broker retained by Jawed's family.
- Before the marriage, Nabila agreed to sponsor Jawed for permanent U.S. residency (a 'green card').
- They married in a civil ceremony on February 1, 2008, and Nabila filed a green card application for Jawed five days later.
- During the marriage, Jawed showed Nabila no affection, his family accepted significant loans and jewelry from Nabila's family which were never returned, and he secretly cashed a student loan check issued in Nabila's name.
- Evidence revealed that just before his engagement to Nabila, Jawed had discussed marrying another American woman with whom he had spoken 'in detail' about her petitioning for his green card.
- Jawed's green card application was approved in February 2011.
- In July 2011, shortly after receiving his green card, Jawed sent Nabila a text message stating 'it's all over' and then divorced her according to Islamic tradition.
- Nabila testified she only realized the entire marriage was a fraudulent scheme for a green card after Jawed divorced her.
Procedural Posture:
- Nabila Hamid Manjlai filed suit against Jawed Manjlai in Harris County District Court, a Texas trial court, seeking an annulment on the grounds of fraud.
- Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Nabila, finding that Jawed had fraudulently induced her into the marriage and that she had not cohabitated with him after discovering the fraud.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict, granting the annulment.
- Jawed filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a motion for a new trial, both of which the trial court denied.
- Jawed Manjlai, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas, with Nabila Hamid Manjlai as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does legally sufficient evidence support a jury's finding that a marriage was induced by fraud, warranting an annulment under Texas Family Code § 6.107, when circumstantial evidence suggests one party married solely to obtain permanent residency and terminated the relationship shortly after that goal was achieved?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Wise
Yes. Legally sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding of fraudulent inducement. A promise of future performance, like marital vows, is fraudulent if made with no intention of performing. While a breach alone is insufficient, the breach combined with even slight circumstantial evidence of fraud can support a verdict. Here, the circumstantial evidence—including Jawed's discussions with another woman about a green card marriage, the rush to file the green card application, the financial exploitation of Nabila's family, his lack of affection, and the divorce immediately following his receipt of the green card—was sufficient for a jury to infer that Jawed's marriage vows were false representations at the time he made them. Furthermore, the jury was entitled to resolve conflicting testimony and believe Nabila's assertion that she did not understand the full scope of the green card fraud until after they had ceased cohabitating.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Frost
No. The evidence is legally insufficient to support an annulment for fraudulent inducement, and the proper remedy should be a divorce. Annulment requires fraud that induces the marriage, meaning the fraudulent act or representation must occur before or at the time of the marriage. The litany of misconduct cited by Nabila—such as financial deceit and lying—all occurred after the civil ceremony and therefore could not have induced her to marry him. There was no evidence of a specific, material false promise or representation made by Jawed at or before the civil ceremony. Even if Jawed's sole motivation was to obtain a green card, that motivation itself is not a false representation made to Nabila to induce the marriage. Post-marriage misconduct is grounds for divorce, not annulment, and conflating the two remedies undermines the legislature's narrow grounds for annulment.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that fraudulent intent for an annulment can be proven through a pattern of circumstantial evidence occurring after the marriage ceremony. It establishes that a party's actions, such as terminating a relationship immediately after achieving an objective like permanent residency, can serve as 'slight circumstantial evidence' sufficient to infer that the initial marriage vows were fraudulent. The decision also gives significant weight to the wronged party's subjective timeline of discovering the entire fraudulent scheme, distinguishing it from the discovery of individual lies, which impacts the requirement to cease cohabitation. This precedent may make it easier for petitioners in similar 'green card marriage' cases to obtain an annulment rather than a divorce.
